Why do Aussies hate murili?

[C_C]

God damn are you a scientific physiotherapists thingy person?

No. I am an engineer 'thingy' person. As i said, i am not an authority in this biomechanics field but any person with thorough grounding in any of the sciences will be able to follow the low-level explanations i was given.(and which in turn i am trying to explain here- not with much success i see, thanks to my cumbersome writing style)

 

[C_C]

Lateral extension (abduction/adduction) also needs taking into account.

Yup. That too adds to the pot in terms of optical illusions. Thanks neil-should've acknowledged it sooner but a teeny tiny post sometimes skips my attention.

 

[JBH001]

C_C has explained things quite well.

But some points do require re-iteration.

Namely this, that Warne though the best leg-spinner of all time, has also been blessed by playing in a side and a set-up that for most of his career, has also been the best in the world. Warne has been an integral part of this set up - but he has also benefited from it. He has benefitted by bowling with a man who is arguably one of the top 3 pacemen of all time, he has also benefitted by having lesser bowlers and lesser support bowlers who would have walked into almost any other side as first choice bowlers with long careers (for example Sri Lanka). Some of these bowlers are McDermott, Reiffel, Julian, Fleming, Kasper, Gillespie, Lee, and now Clark and so on. He has also benefitted by bowling behind a top 7 that for most of his career has been the premier batting line-up, both home and away, a line-up that consistently racks up big scores home and away, fast. He has also benefitted by being part of a team that, for most of his career, set the bar in terms of standards of ground fielding and catching - a unit that collectively works to maintain and enforce the pressure that Warne often creates. He has also benefitted by playing under a succession of truly great captains in AB, Tubby, and Tugga, and a very good one in Ponting. He has also benefitted in playing under a truly professional cricket coaching, managerial, and administrative structure that is the admiration and envy of most, if not all, of the cricketing world. Warne is the greatest leg spinner of all time, but he has been part of a set-up and a team, that gave him every opportunity and support in doing and becoming so.

Murali, if at all, has had these benefits in some but never equal measure, but intermittently and haphazardly - at best.
And yet, for all of these disadvantages, Murali is statistically the superior bowler.

Murali then, not only trumps him in terms of the tangible factors, but also in terms of any intangible factor worth naming.

Over time, it becomes more and more clear, that with no disrespect to Warne, Murali is head and shoulders superior to him as a spinner and as a bowler.

 

[Butterteeth]

I dont think you will see Barishnikov ballet in a chorus of boos or Pavarotti sing over hootings. They'd stomp off the stage and quite rightly so.
The audience must always realise its position- below that of the master and not on the same level- if they were, then they belong in the spotlight with the masters. And if they arnt, they should feel previledged enough to have the opportunity to see a master perform in person.

Drawing a bit of a longish bow there comparing Cricket to Ballet and Opera - certainly the drama, tension, tears and laughter of a test match could draw comparisons and the fat man (you know who I mean) rather than the fat lady often sings but cricket is a sporting contest - entertainment yes, but in a completely different context to the performing arts. I would have thought that any performer (sport or the arts) has an obligation to his or her audience - not the other way around.

And "the audience must always realise its position - below that of the master" ???

Bloody hell.....I didn't realise I should be prostrating myself and averting my eyes lest they be burnt by the greatness before me when I go to the cricket. Thanks for setting me straight. I shall now retire to my room for self flagellation and a dose of self berating.

 

[C_C]

[I would have thought that any performer (sport or the arts) has an obligation to his or her audience - not the other way around.

Incorrect. The performer has an obligation to the audience to give his/her best effort and present as close to perfect performance as possible. The obligation of the audience is to show respect to the performer or quite simply, clear out. If one side breaks the compact, the other has no obligation to uphold their's. Both sides have an obligation- not just one. The attitude you are displaying is precisely what's wrong with the audience today.

Bloody hell.....I didn't realise I should be prostrating myself and averting my eyes lest they be burnt by the greatness before me when I go to the cricket. Thanks for setting me straight. I shall now retire to my room for self flagellation and a dose of self berating

You *ARE* at a lower station than the cricketers in the middle : It is *their* turf, you are persent there to see *them* perform, you are given an opportunity to see *them* perform provided there is availability and you fork up some money. And you are nowhere close to being as good as they are in their area of expertise. Since you are, metaphorically speaking, in 'their element', they *are* in an elavated position. And the situation would be reversed if you were anywhere as accomplished as they are in your field and the cricketers paid you a visit when you are in your element.
As i said, money doesnt earn you the 'right' to do as you please- you are paying to have the priviledge afforded to you to see a Warne or a Murali play. When you buy a ticket and sit at the MCG or WACA, realise that you are priviledged to be there- you are lucky to be there and your presence is not a 'free pass' to be a boor.
If you cannot watch their performance in respect and even more brazenly, heckle them, they have ZERO obligation to entertain you.
Its just *that* simple.

 

[social]

C_C has explained things quite well.

But some points do require re-iteration.

Namely this, that Warne though the best leg-spinner of all time, has also been blessed by playing in a side and a set-up that for most of his career, has also been the best in the world. Warne has been an integral part of this set up - but he has also benefited from it. He has benefitted by bowling with a man who is arguably one of the top 3 pacemen of all time, he has also benefitted by having lesser bowlers and lesser support bowlers who would have walked into almost any other side as first choice bowlers with long careers (for example Sri Lanka). Some of these bowlers are McDermott, Reiffel, Julian, Fleming, Kasper, Gillespie, Lee, and now Clark and so on. He has also benefitted by bowling behind a top 7 that for most of his career has been the premier batting line-up, both home and away, a line-up that consistently racks up big scores home and away, fast. He has also benefitted by being part of a team that, for most of his career, set the bar in terms of standards of ground fielding and catching - a unit that collectively works to maintain and enforce the pressure that Warne often creates. He has also benefitted by playing under a succession of truly great captains in AB, Tubby, and Tugga, and a very good one in Ponting. He has also benefitted in playing under a truly professional cricket coaching, managerial, and administrative structure that is the admiration and envy of most, if not all, of the cricketing world. Warne is the greatest leg spinner of all time, but he has been part of a set-up and a team, that gave him every opportunity and support in doing and becoming so.

Murali, if at all, has had these benefits in some but never equal measure, but intermittently and haphazardly - at best.
And yet, for all of these disadvantages, Murali is statistically the superior bowler.

Murali then, not only trumps him in terms of the tangible factors, but also in terms of any intangible factor worth naming.

Over time, it becomes more and more clear, that with no disrespect to Warne, Murali is head and shoulders superior to him as a spinner and as a bowler.

And how do you factor into the equation that, virtually every time he bowls a ball at home, Murali bowls on a spinners' paradise

 

[Ikki]

False.
Away tests do not include 'neutral' venues. In terms of away record, the definition used is not 'away from my home' but 'in the home of the opposition'.Kindly modify your stats as thus and you shall find that it is identical to the ones i presented.

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet". Or in this case, stink like dog poo. I am talking about Warne/Murali not bowling in either Australia or Sri Lanka. When Warne bowls everywhere BUT Australia, those are the stats. When Murali bowls everywhere BUT Sri Lanka those are the stats. Don't hide from the relevance.

Yet again, false.
As i said and demonstrated through example, my home record is irrelevant to the discussion when comparing away records alone, as you've done.

LOL, do you think you just say something and it becomes a golden rule? The home record has everything to do with the discussion, it's used precisely as a contrast between Murali's REAL effort and Warne's. It shows exactly how inflated his figures are. As I said, I did a comparison before which swapped homes for both men, EVEN THOUGH Warne had a better record both in Sri Lanka and Australia, and Warne was out miles ahead.

And that 'rant' is inaccurate. Not just logically but factually. As i explained, operating as a part of a better bowling unit sees one take less wickets but concede less runs and thus end up with better averages. This is the reason Warne averages less when McGrath is present (and his wicket/match ratio also drops) but when McGrath is absent, Warne's average too bloats up but he also takes more wickets.

Except that it has happened much too fewer times and it also depends on Warne's form. Ashes 05 McGrath was out and Warne kept Australia in the game single-handedly and took 40 wickets in that series. That's a big dump on that logic. Also you can't disagree with basic numbers/logic. Murali's stats are inflated because he bowls so much yet has almost a negative impact on his team - as said in Francis' posts. He can bowl crap for half the match (which many times means more overs than a whole Warne match) and still end up cleaning them up and improving his figures even if that means his team loses. Warne doesn't have that. If Warne bowls poor, he isn't given as many overs to make it up, he ends his game and his stats are poorer for it. But still, despite all this, Warne is still competitive in all departments.

The similar pattern is also noticed amongst the four prong of the WI pace quartet- when Holding was operating before the rise fo Garner and Marshall, he took more wickets but his average was also higher.This pattern is true for most bowlers because, as i explained, when you are the lone gunman, the batsmen can afford to play you out and even though you take more wickets/match, you leak a lot more runs- ie, the difference between 3-33 and 6-90. You can work out the average if it isnt too hard for you.

I'm not talking about a quartet of fast bowlers, firstly. Secondly, Warne having support has terribly cut into his figures. How many fivers do you expect Warne to take in a match when McGrath has taken 29 in his whole career. How much momentum do you think it possible carries? By the time Warne walks onto the pitch the other team is usually 5 or 6 down and that leaves little to suggest that McGrath and co are doing Warne a favour. Therefore Warne has to make batsmen play and indeed that is the type of bowler he is. He doesn't defend and he surely isn't too caring of his average. There is also a difference between 1/5 and 4/20 but what it doesn't show is that while one has many chances to fix the average when bowling poorly, the other doesn't.

First, dont 'son' me- i doubt you have the required age pre-requisite or the knowhow to take that tone with me. Second, as i mentioned, Murali is Warne's equal even when you deduct the two 'substandard' teams. But the fact that he does it without the backup of bowlers anywhere in the same zone as McGrath + Gillespie + Fleming + Lee and having humongous runs on the board is sufficient enough for me to rate him comfortably ahead. You may whine about his 'home factor' but as is demonstrated through stats, his away performance is on-par with Warne's. And that is an area where Warne has a *huge* advantage- having bowlers like McGrath, Gillespie, Lee, Fleming, etc. to scythe through the opposition and expose the soft underbelly consistetly for Warne- or atleast far far more often than what Murali gets.

Once you learn to debate and lose the pompous tone I'll give you that respect, until then I'll call you son. Ok son, the problem isn't just bowling against minnows.

Roughly 40% of Murali's wickets are from Bangladesh, Zimbabwe and batsmen 8-11. Then you have to also mention that Murali plays more than half his games at home - a.k.a spinner's paradise. Then mention that he has no real competition for wickets and that shows indeed how inflated his record is.

The "Warne takes weaker batsmen and is helped when the other bowlers soften up the opposition" is just trash. Warne takes about 6-7% more lower order wickets than Murali - that's really nothing. But the difference is while Warne usually comes in after 5-6 have fallen, the mid-to-lower order batsmen are all that is afforded to him. So putting it into perspective, and acknowledging that Murali still gets so many lower order wickets, despite having more of a chance than Warne at bowling against the upper-order is actually damning to his case as he is only a bit less than Warne in that aspect.

As i said, just about the *only* factor in Murali's favour is the home-pitch factor. Everything else is in Warne's favour and Murali still is ahead/equal. If you do just as fine as me while sporting half a dozen more handicaps, yuo are comfortably better. Its just *that* simple that apparently is lost on your jingoistic brain. He is not just ahead statistically- the bulk of the intangiables and 'non-statistiscal factors' point towards murali being the superior spinner.

Besides, i am done talking to you on this - your allergy to reasoning and lack of a cricketing brain ( or concealed under the aussie flag) is painfully obvious to me. Over and out.

As before, you're always great for a laugh. No, if anything Warne is ahead in the intangibles. His character, charisma, and guile dwarf Murali. Murali can only compete on inflated statistics. It's like saying Ali Daei is the greatest international goal scorer, who has more goals than Pele, Puskas, etc, simply because he is statistically superior but in reality he is much inferior to those two.

I am actually not originally from Australia, and closer to Murali than you think. I just can't in good conscience not adore the greatness that Warne brings to cricket. And everyone on here knows you buddy. Don't kidd yourself.

 

[PhoenixFire]

His character, charisma, and guile dwarf Murali[/B]. Murali can only compete on inflated statistics. It's like saying Ali Daei is the greatest international goal scorer, who has more goals than Pele, Puskas, etc, simply because he is statistically superior but in reality he is much inferior to those two.

Haha, what does that have to do with anything? If having charism and character means having affairs, taking drugs being overweight then yes.

 

[Ikki]

Haha, what does that have to do with anything? If having charism and character means having affairs, taking drugs being overweight then yes.

What are you talking about? I'm talking about his on-field persona kiddo.

 

[PhoenixFire]

What are you talking about? I'm talking about his on-field persona kiddo.

Don't you kiddo me

Ok, I don't think swearing at the opposition, and seldging is having a personality, unless you mean something else?

 

[Ikki]

Don't you kiddo me

Ok, I don't think swearing at the opposition, and seldging is having a personality, unless you mean something else?

My bad, Cricket must be rated M 15+ these days.

 

[PhoenixFire]

My bad, Cricket must be rated M 15+ these days.

Must be?

 

[Ikki]

Must be?

As long as we want to keep fans like yourself safe, of course!

 

[Butterteeth]

Incorrect.

No - not incorrect. Just a different opinion to yours.
A sporting contest and a performance of ballet, opera or theatre both provide entertainment. But they are two forms of entertainment taking place in completely different environments and contexts. In my mind, a professional sports person, be they a cricketer, footballer or sheep dog trialist are there to win a competition and should be immune to comments, taunts or praise from the crowd. Murali puts himself above the game and his team by considering not touring a particular country because he doesn't like what some members of the crowd are saying. In not touring, he breaks the compact you mention due to the actions of a few and lets down the majority who want to see him here with the Sri Lankan team. What about his compact with them?

Richard Hadlee reacted similarly back in the 80's on a tour of Australia with the infamous 'Hadlee's a W*****' chant. He was always someone who handled himself somewhat regally and couldn't cope with what was a light hearted taunt from the crowd (mind you, he kept playing and didn't think about going home with his bat and ball). The following season, Ian Botham copped the same chant - but within 5 minutes had the crowd eating out of his hand. The reaction of the individual to the situation determined the outcome.

And any cricketer is welcome to come and see me when I'm in my element. Of course, they wouldn't want to..and it would be more boring than a ODI,...but they'd be welcome.

 

[Johnners]

Just to add an example to the above post... Brett Lee should boycott playing against england because the Barmy Army do the whole "no-ball" chant to Lee as well

 

[Son Of Coco]

I dont think i am explaining it well. What i mean is, for a person to **** their wrist ( as i said before, even if your wrist is slightly 'raised' as it always is for bowlers about to deliver the ball), keep a straight elbow and impart force while the arm is turning over (torquing) is literally impossible- unless you are truely a one-in-a-million case with crazy flexible hands or something. Just ****ing your wrist while having your arm straight will produce an tension in the underside of your arm- if you are holding a ball, it will be more pronounced. If you are trying to throw it (with a stationary arm-ie, just ****ed and straight elbow, the arm isnt going in circles at your side ala bowling action) it will produce an even greater tension- you can feel all this if you just pick up a ball and do it. Now, while you are torquing your arm (turning it over rapidly) and trying to do this all at once, your elbow WILL bend normally (forgive me for confusing you by saying 'in' and 'out') just so that your arm muscles dont rip itself apart.

And this is the 'normal elbow-bending' effect that is produced naturally while delivering the ball.

ahha, ok I see what you mean. I've been doing this with no ball in my hand and it produces a similar effect...and the people driving past my window think I'm insane.

 

[Son Of Coco]

C_C has explained things quite well.

But some points do require re-iteration.

Namely this, that Warne though the best leg-spinner of all time, has also been blessed by playing in a side and a set-up that for most of his career, has also been the best in the world. Warne has been an integral part of this set up - but he has also benefited from it. He has benefitted by bowling with a man who is arguably one of the top 3 pacemen of all time, he has also benefitted by having lesser bowlers and lesser support bowlers who would have walked into almost any other side as first choice bowlers with long careers (for example Sri Lanka). Some of these bowlers are McDermott, Reiffel, Julian, Fleming, Kasper, Gillespie, Lee, and now Clark and so on. He has also benefitted by bowling behind a top 7 that for most of his career has been the premier batting line-up, both home and away, a line-up that consistently racks up big scores home and away, fast. He has also benefitted by being part of a team that, for most of his career, set the bar in terms of standards of ground fielding and catching - a unit that collectively works to maintain and enforce the pressure that Warne often creates. He has also benefitted by playing under a succession of truly great captains in AB, Tubby, and Tugga, and a very good one in Ponting. He has also benefitted in playing under a truly professional cricket coaching, managerial, and administrative structure that is the admiration and envy of most, if not all, of the cricketing world. Warne is the greatest leg spinner of all time, but he has been part of a set-up and a team, that gave him every opportunity and support in doing and becoming so.

Murali, if at all, has had these benefits in some but never equal measure, but intermittently and haphazardly - at best.
And yet, for all of these disadvantages, Murali is statistically the superior bowler.

Murali then, not only trumps him in terms of the tangible factors, but also in terms of any intangible factor worth naming.

Over time, it becomes more and more clear, that with no disrespect to Warne, Murali is head and shoulders superior to him as a spinner and as a bowler.

I understand the argument with regards to Warne having played in a better team, but I think those who point out how he regularly takes wickets at the bottom end of the spectrum need to take this into account too (and I know you didn't bring that up, but I just thought I'd add it here). Bowling behind a very good pace attack has its advantages, but the disadvantage is if Mcgrath and co are on fire you are going to be bowling at the bottom order more often than not. You also have to wait for your chances and sometimes not get them at all. Due to being a very very good bowler Warne got more chances than most as he was a frontline bowler on his own merits, however it could be argued Murali gets more chances due to his support not being as good. I think the are arguments for and against both, and indeed points brought up in either category could be argued either way.

Regardless of this, I enjoy watching them both. I haven't seen enough of Murali bowling long spells as he hasn't been in Aus much of late, but it'll be good to see him when he gets here.

 

[Josh]

Just to add an example to the above post... Brett Lee should boycott playing against england because the Barmy Army do the whole "no-ball" chant to Lee as well

If Murali's setting the example, then why not?? Warney probably should've boycotted England about 10 years ago if that's what we want our cricketers to do. Crowd taunting, geez how depressing. It's only been happening for how the hell long?? And what you get out in the middle is probably 400 times worse.

Absolutely absurd.

 

[Jono]

Bit different when crowd members paint their faces black though, in what is clearly a racial abuse.

Mind you I understand your point, and understand that its a minority that does these idiotic things, but its not as simple an issue as you're making it out to be.

I personally was disappointed when Murali didn't come.

 

[Matt79]

You *ARE* at a lower station than the cricketers in the middle : It is *their* turf, you are persent there to see *them* perform, you are given an opportunity to see *them* perform provided there is availability and you fork up some money. And you are nowhere close to being as good as they are in their area of expertise. Since you are, metaphorically speaking, in 'their element', they *are* in an elavated position. And the situation would be reversed if you were anywhere as accomplished as they are in your field and the cricketers paid you a visit when you are in your element.
As i said, money doesnt earn you the 'right' to do as you please- you are paying to have the priviledge afforded to you to see a Warne or a Murali play. When you buy a ticket and sit at the MCG or WACA, realise that you are priviledged to be there- you are lucky to be there and your presence is not a 'free pass' to be a boor.
If you cannot watch their performance in respect and even more brazenly, heckle them, they have ZERO obligation to entertain you.
Its just *that* simple.

That's one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. They have EVERY obligation to us, the audience, so long as our interest in their otherwise useless skills provides them with a living that dwarfs that earned by nurses, teachers, farmers, bakers, you know, people who actually contribute something useful to society. Their ONLY value is as performers and a performer is nothing without an audience.

This isn't to say that people should have no restrictions on their behaviour at the cricket, but the obligation to behave yourself is owed to your society, ie the other members of the audience, not to the paid entertainers out their in the middle.